Murders and Free Speech

This week, on Tuesday, 5 September, Gauri Lankesh, 55, editor of a weekly newspaper, was shot dead outside her house by unknown assailants.

Before that Narendra Dabholkar, 67 (murdered on 20 Aug 2013), Govind Pansare, 81 (20 Feb 2015) and M.M.Kalburgi, 76 (30 Aug 2015) were all killed in a similar fashion, by unknown helmeted bikers, using 7.65 mm pistols, firing several shots  at point blank range to make certain the victim was dead.

“Is free speech under attack in the world’s largest democracy? Who is next?” Asked Washington post the following day.

“In India, another government critic is silenced by bullets”, said the New York Times headline.

“The murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh shows India descending into violence”, asserted UK’s Guardian.

An interesting case

As a peace-loving person, I denounce all killings, pre-meditated, impulsive, war related, state sponsored; irrespective of who the victim or the killer is. The following analysis is neither sentimental nor political. I will try to be as objective as is humanly possible and fact-based where facts are available. As a writer based in India, I am certainly an interested party when questions are raised about the freedom of speech in India.  The case of the cold-blooded murder this week and the reactions to it present several interesting points.

Narendra Dabholkar’s murder

The evening before his murder, Narendra Dabholkar visited his sister Amarja at Mahim, less than 500 meters from my house. Amarja has been my mother’s friend for several decades. I have read many of Dabholkar’s books. Dabholkar was an intellectual, progressive person, committed to his mission of dispelling superstition in Maharashtra. His books expose perversity in certain backward sections of Indian society, where infants are sacrificed by throwing them from the top of a building (supposedly to please certain Gods). Dabholkar relentlessly tried to fight black magic. As a qualified medical doctor, he scientifically demonstrated to gullible masses how “miracles” can be performed. Despite stiff resistance, he tried to get the State to outlaw those practising superstition and black magic.

Dabholkar was called a rationalist. His agenda was neither political nor religious. It was against self proclaimed Godmen, dubious tantriks and pseudo-gurus who exploited the illiterates. Dabholkar, Pansare and Kalburgi were all scholars, authors of several books and social activists.

Gauri Lankesh was different. Her constant criticism of Hinduism, her attempts to pronounce Lingayat as a religion separate from Hinduism show she was not a rationalist. A rationalist criticises the ills in all religions, not focusing on a specific religion. The difference between Dabholkar’s and Lankesh’s activism is not a matter of semantics. It is to show how wrong it is to put them in one bracket. There was a clear motive to kill Dabholkar, none to kill Lankesh.

Motive

Journalists, particularly the activists among them, have been killed at regular intervals in India. There is nothing new about it. In the last twenty five years, some 71 journalists have been murdered. Most of them wrote in local languages. (I presume people in the English media are either more cautious, reach fewer people, or are savvy enough to use police protection). In most cases, the murdered journalists were trying to unearth some corruption scandal or investigate a serious crime. A corrupt politician or a professional criminal can easily silence a journalist before the damaging story comes out. That’s a clear motive. Similarly, in Dabholkar’s case, had his efforts succeeded, many charlatan gurus would have lost their luxurious lifestyles. (Some of them do land in Indian jails, but only after manipulating their devotees for years). What they practised without restraint would have become illegal and criminal. It was better to get rid of Dabholkar before he succeeded. That was not the case with Gauri Lankesh. Based on current data, she didn’t pose a threat to anybody’s livelihood.

The Naxal angle

Naxalites are the Indian group of Maoists-communists, who since 1967 aim to overthrow the government through violent uprisings. They resent the Indian State taking over the tribal forest lands that belonged to them. The Naxalite-government conflict has been among India’s most blood-spattered conflicts. The Naxalite movement was mainly active in West Bengal. But several other states, including Karnataka were affected. Gauri Lankesh was a Naxal sympathiser. The Karnataka government had used her as a mediator. Lankesh actively sought to rehabilitate Naxalites by bringing them into the “mainstream”. This expression denotes a Naxalite surrendering, and the government helping his family with monthly allowance for a number of years. Some reporters have speculated that Lankesh’s connection with Naxalites could have caused her murder.

The problem with this theory is that the movement was already weak in Karnataka. In 2010, Karnataka was removed from the list of Naxal-affected states. More importantly, the central government and Gauri Lankesh were on the same page. Both wished to bring the Naxalites into the mainstream. And if Naxalite revolutionaries were upset about it, they should have gotten rid of Lankesh before 2010, not now.

The Hindutva brigade, RSS, BJP, Far right

Social media these days serves as a platform for civil wars. Facebook and Twitter have two camps. Depending on how debauched a person is, hate is spewed out towards the opposite camp. This is a worldwide phenomenon. I call the verbal exchange an ‘uncivil war’ and call that part of social media ‘anti-social media’. One can opt to take part in this hate war, or ignore it like we ignore pornographic websites. This verbal exchange by the curators of hate is usually devoid of literary talent, rational arguments or factual basis.

One such Indian civil war takes place between Modi fans and Modi haters. Modi haters think of him as a genocidal autocrat, his party fascist, his associates terrorists. They call him the Supreme Leader, they deride his fans as Modi Bhakts (devotees), and they paint Hinduism with saffron, a colour so terrible that India’s bleak future lies in its possible saffronisation. India currently doesn’t have a worthwhile opposition leader. The opposite camp has no choice but to attack the Modi haters. Two of the Indian portmanteau terms used are presstitutes and sickular. On Twitter, you don’t need to create anything new. You can simply take the venom of your liking and retweet it. When millions retweet, a giant hate cloud is formed in the air.

Gauri Lankesh belonged to the camp of Modi/Hindutva/BJP/RSS haters. Her Twitter page is filled with an artillery of hate re-tweets. She herself acknowledges some of her posts are not verified and may be fake. 

One proposed theory is that her murder was the result of her relentless attacks on BJP/RSS/Hindutva brigade. 

To test this theory, let us assume it was a state-sponsored killing. In order to silence a Hindutva/Modi critic, the ruling party decided to silence her for ever.

There are two reasons why a contract killing is ordered: threat or revenge.

Gauri Lankesh was not a threat of any kind. Her local weekly tabloid was small, its circulation was between 10,000 and 15,000. As a Naxal activist, her interests matched with the government. Her social media posts were nothing out of the ordinary.

And if revenge was a motive, and Lankesh was punished for her persistent criticism of the Hindutva brigade, then a few more million Indians would need to be murdered. Millions of Indians post, tweet or re-tweet stuff similar to what Gauri Lankesh posted. Why target her?

That is the reason I reject the theory of a state sponsored murder. No doubt there may be private Hindu groups willing and capable of terrorising and killing. They still need to have a motive to target Gauri Lankesh from among the millions saying the same things day in and day out. Why her?

A woman

Also noteworthy is that a woman activist was targeted. Of course, several women are routinely killed in India, by husbands, lovers, boyfriends, in-laws. But as far as assassinations of politicians or journalists are concerned, I can’t remember anyone apart from Indira Gandhi. The Indian Prime Minister was killed by her Sikh bodyguard as revenge for her sending troops to assault the holiest Sikh temple. A very clear motive.

Please look at this list of Indian journalists murdered as a result of their work between 1992 and 2016.

They are all men.

One reason, of course, could be that there are fewer women in politics and journalism. The other reason could be that many religions and moral laws prohibit the killing of women and children. Quite often, hijackers and terrorists let the women go, and keep the men hostage or kill them. Even terrorists can have a lower boundary below which they can’t fall.

That’s what surprises me in this case. Targeting a woman for media impact or terrorising is bizarre. In India, a woman getting killed in a private feud is far more probable than a planned killing by a terror group.

Getting away with murder

Dabholkar, Pansare, Kalburgi were murdered, but their killers are not found. This has been projected as evidence that the killers of journalists, intellectuals, rationalists are backed by the police and the state. This is another myth.

The above three murders and Gauri Lankesh’s murder happened in two adjoining states: Maharashtra and Karnataka. The Indian rate of disposal of cases by the police is 71.6%. Maharashtra (59.9%) and Karnataka (63.8%) have rates much lower than the national average. This indicates that in Maharashtra, in 4 out of 10 cases, investigation is not completed. The police force is underpaid and overburdened. India is not as well covered by CCTV as richer, Western countries. Contract killings by bikers using smuggled or homemade pistols are the most difficult to resolve.

The Indian intolerance  

A picture has been projected to suggest the intolerance and violence in India is growing, particularly in the last three years (meaning since the time Modi became India’s PM).

A country half of whose citizens have little or no access to reliable electricity, drinking water or toilet; 50% of whose children are underweight, and 30 million citizens alarmingly hungry; where 1.3 billion people are squashed in 2% of world’s land; where diversity is such that a banknote needs to be printed in 17 languages; should have had gory social revolutions long ago. The fact that for seventy years India has remained one despite immense poverty and abysmal quality of life, suggests its extreme tolerance.

The perception that India has become increasingly intolerant after Modi/BJP government is rarely fact based. In the context of this article, it should be noted that Narendra Dabholkar was murdered when both in his state (Maharashtra) and at the centre (Delhi) the Congress government ruled. Unless Modi/BJP began intolerance with retrospective effect, the Dabholkar case can’t be offered as proof of BJP’s intolerance.  

Murders and freedom of speech

Journalists’ murder statistic is not necessarily co-related to freedom of speech. For example, in the past twenty five years, only two journalists have been killed in China and none in Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

That India regularly loses journalists/activists to attacks implies they continue to exercise their freedom irrespective of the risks. Many journalists/writers are naive in thinking nobody would actually bother to kill them. M.M.Kalburgi, one of the three scholars killed, had police protection. He asked the state government to withdraw it. Within 15 days after the withdrawal, he was killed. Both Kalburgi and Gauri Lankesh might have been alive today, if they had police protection.

Politicians the world over enjoy a high level of security. That is one reason they remain safe. Every writer, journalist, intellectual receiving death threats must ask for police protection.

Conclusion

My views in summary:

(1)               The murder of Gauri Lankesh can’t be put in the same bracket with that of Narendra Dabholkar, simply because the killing modus operandi was the same. Dabholkar’s killing had a motive, Lankesh’s didn’t. (Or at least we don’t know yet).

(2)              If Lankesh was killed because of her strong views against Hinduism and the ruling party, a few more millions would need to be murdered. Why pick her, why pick a woman?

(3)              The probability is that Lankesh was killed for a specific reason (of a private or local nature) by the person/group who ordered the killing. India has enough madmen, enough mercenaries, and enough smuggled or homemade pistols.

(4)              Given the context of poverty, overcrowding and diversity, India remains one of the most tolerant countries. The default for a poor country is dictatorship. India is a notable exception.

(5)              The rate of killing of Indian journalists has not changed over the past twenty five years. There is more noise than substance, more propaganda than facts to say the freedom of speech or tolerance levels have deteriorated since Modi’s arrival. They have become worse, in line with the global deterioration. Part of social media encourages hate campaigns and intolerance. If one were to study Indian social media, we now have the highest level of freedom of speech.

            Readers disagreeing with my conclusion are welcome to send me facts (real facts, not alternative facts) to substantiate how tolerance, violence and speech freedom have gone down in India.

Ravi